HomeSMT P. SHESHU KUMARI V. USHA BASAVARAJ & ANR.

SMT P. SHESHU KUMARI V. USHA BASAVARAJ & ANR.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS A T DEVANAHALLI

PRESENT : SRI KUMARA G. B.COM. LL.B.

        PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC DEVANAHALLI

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 1456 OF 2006 DATED ON THIS 03rd DAY OF MAY, 2025

PLAINTIFF: SMT P. SHESHU KUMARI,

VERSUS

DEFENDANTS : SMT USHA BASAVARAJ & ANOTHER

(D-1 IS REPRESENTED BY SRI SN, ADVOCATE & D-2 IS REPRESENTED BY SRI MGK, ADVOCATE)

This judgment arises out of suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction.

02. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY: –

AH that piece and parcel of the property bearing survey No.96, (old survey No.3), measuring 06-00 acres, situated at Navarathna Agrahara village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and bounded on:

Property bearing survey No.97, Remaining land in survey No.96,

North by : – Eletore Village Boundary &

South by :- Road connecting Navarathna Agrahara

Village and Palya.

(Herein after the description of the suit schedule property will be referred as “suit land or suit property” for the sake of convenience and brevity)

03. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that she is the absolute owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land and purchased the same through Register Sale Deed bearing document No.5593/92-93 on 06-03-1993 from its previous owner Sri Amarjith Singh. In pursuance of purchase, she has been put in possession of the suit land and based on the sale deed, katha of the suit land has been mutated in her name and her name is appearing in the Record of Rights as possessor and cultivator. She is also paying tax to the Government. She is cultivating the suit land and growing crops therein. The defendants are claiming to be the adjacent land owner on the eastern side of the suit land. The defendants are not having any kind of rights or title or interest or possession over the suit land. Shi Govindaswamy, Shi Venkatesh, Sri Govinda, Smt Parvathamma and Shi Kanappa have illegally caused obstruction and interfered with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has constrained to institute the suit for permanent injunction against them and interim order of status-quo has been passed. After coming to know about passing of interim order, the said persons have instigated the defendant and their henchmen to meddle with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property. The defendants have trespassing and damaging the fence put-up by the plaintiff around the suit property. The defendants have also attempted to dig the trenches on 21-11-2004 on the eastern side of the suit property. Immediately the plaintiff lodged complaint before Jala Police and they have momentarily resisted the illegal attempt of the defendants. The defendants have joined their hands with the local anti- social elements and again they are trying to trespass into the suit property by taking undue advantage of absence of the plaintiff in the suit land as he is presently residing at Hebbal, Bengaluru. Hence the plaintiff had instituted the present suit against the defendants for permanent injunction. The cause of action to institute the suit arose on and from 21-11-2004 when the defendants have illegally interfered with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

04. Initially, the suit has been instituted only against defendant No.1. In pursuance of service of suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared through advocate and filed written statement by denying entire averments of the plaint as false. The defendant No.1 has denied entire averments of the plaint such as ownership, possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and also the alleged obstruction or interference. The defendant No.1 also pleaded his ignorance as to right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is specifically contended that cause of action not arose to the plaintiff to institute the present suit. For the above said reasons, the defendant No.1 has prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

05. During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2 himself impleaded as the transferee of the right and title of the above said property from defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 has filed written statement by denying the plaint averments as false. It is specifically contended that the boundaries of the suit property are incorrect and misleading. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not fenced the suit property. It is specifically contended by defendant No.2 that she had purchased the land bearing survey No.3, measuring 04-30 acres, situated at Navarathna Agrahara Village, Jala Hobli from defendant No.1 through Register Sale Deed on 10- 11-2005 and the same has been covered with compound walls and gate. It is further contended that the defendant No.2 is the lawful owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of above said land and katha has been mutated in his name and his name is appearing in the revenue records as possessor and cultivator.

06. It is further contended that the plaintiff herein caused obstruction and interfered with the defendant No.1 possession and enjoyment of the above said land on 22-03-2005 and hence, she had instituted suit in OS No.1787/2006 for permanent injunction on 07-04-2005 and the court has granted ex-parte interim order on 12-04-2005 by restraining the plaintiff herein from putting-up any sort of construction over the compound wall of the property of defendant No.1. The plaintiff is falsely asserting that the she is the owner of suit schedule property and it is situated on the eastern side of the suit property with ulterior motive to encroach the property belongs to defendants. The plaintiff has not fenced the suit property as alleged. The boundaries furnished in the plaint schedule especially on the south and east are incorrect and mis-leading. It is further contended that on 12-07-2013 the plaintiff having no manner of right or title or interest, came near the defendant’s property during night hours along with the large number of hired goondas and trespassed in to the defendants property and demolished entire western side hallow bricks compound measuring 506 feets in length and 4 feets in height and caused damage to the extent of 10 lakhs. Hence, the defendant No.2 has lodged complaint before Chikkajala Police in Crime No.107/2013 for the offences punishable under section 427, 506, 504, 149, 447 and 324 of IPC. The plaintiff had filed false complaint on 16-07-2013 against defendant No.2 before Chikka Jala Police as a counter blast.

07. It is also contended that the plaintiff is falsely claiming that the land belongs to Smt Krishnaveni in survey No.97/1, measuring 01 -32 Guntas is situated in between her property and defendants’ property. The plaintiff is squatting on the neighboring western side property without any valid title or possession over the said. The plaintiff is falsely claiming that she had purchased the suit land from Sri Amarjith Singh through Register Sale Deed on 18-02-1993 with western boundary as remaining land in survey No.96 and southern boundary as road which is connecting Navarathna Agrahara and Palya. It is also contended that Sri Amarjith Singh had purchased 06-00 acres from Shi Govinda Kumar Poddar through Register Sale Deed on 10-06- 1983 with western boundary as survey No.95 and southern boundary as remaining 06-00 acres of land in survey No.96. In fact, the alleged 06-00 acres of land purchased by Sri Amarjith Singh through Register Sale Deed on 10-06-1983 is bounded on northern side by the land in survey No.96 and south by the remaining 06-00 acres. The boundaries mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed dated 10-06-1983 and 18-02-1993 are different and false boundaries. The actual extent of survey No.96 is 12-00 acres and originally it belongs to Sri K. Shamaiah. Sri K. Shamaiah sold entire extent to Sri M. Raja Rao through Register Sale Deed on 14-02-1958 with eastern boundary of Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rao’s property. Now the plaintiff is falsely claims that western boundary of the suit land is survey No.97. Survey No.97 never belongs to Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rao or his successor in title. The plaintiff has no valid title or possession over survey No.96. But also, he is trying to encroach the property belongs to defendant. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of suit land and therefore the suit is liable to dismissed. For the above said reasons, the defendant No.2 also prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.

08. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, my predecessors in office has framed the following issues for determination:

ISSUES

  1. Whether the plaintiff prove that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
  2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought

for?

  • What order or Decree?
    • In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, her husband is examined as PW-1 in pursuance of SPA given by her and got admitted 49 documents as per Exhibit P-1 to P-49. In order to substantiate the contentions took-up in the written statement, the son of defendant No.2 examined as DW-1 in pursuance of SPA executed by her and he got admitted 31 documents as per Exhibit D-1 to D-31.After closure of evidence, heard the arguments advanced by Sri NSM, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri MGK, the learned counsel for defendant No.2 and appreciated the evidence placed on record.
    • The learned counsel for defendant No.2 has relied upon the fallowing decisions
      • (2024) 1 SCR 11 in a case between Mary Pushpam versus

Telvi Curusumary and others rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

  • Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,

Bengaluru in RFA No.1772/2017 in a case between Smt.

Sampoornamma versus Smt Mallamma

  1. Upon hearing arguments and on careful appreciation of the

evidence placed on record, my answers to the above Issues are as under:

Issue No.1                :           In the negative,

Issue No.2                :           In the negative,

Issue No.3                :           In the negative and

Issue No.4                :           As per final order for the following:

REASONS

  1. ISSUE NO.1:- As I already stated it is the specific case of the plaintiff is that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit land and acquired the same through Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.5593/1992-93 dated 18-02-1993 through purchase from its previous owner Sri S. Amarjith Singh. It further case of the plaintiff is that in pursuance of purchase, katha has been mutated in her name and her name is appearing in the revenue records as possessor and cultivator. It is further case of the plaintiff is that she is paying tax to the Government regularly and also growing crops by cultivating the suit land. It is further case of the plaintiff is that defendants having no manner of right or title or interest or possession, cause obstruction and interfered with her possession and therefore she had instituted the present suit. On the other hand, the defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff in toto and specifically contended that the plaintiff is not in lawful possession and

enjoyment of the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit within the measurement and boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule.

  1. It is well settled that in a suit for bare permanent injunction the plaintiff has to prove his/her possession and enjoyment of the suit property within the measurement and boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule as on the date of filing the suit independently and separately. Along with proving the possession and enjoyment of the suit land, the plaintiff also has to prove the alleged obstruction and interference. In order to prove the lawful and enjoyment and also alleged obstruction or interference, the plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants. In the light of the well settled principles of law, let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
    1. As I already stated, in order to substantiate the plaint averments, the husband of the plaintiff examined as PW-1 in the form of affidavit and re-iterated all the plaint averments once again in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination. Hence, I am not going to state the contents of affidavit filed by PW-1 in his affidavit as it is nothing but reiteration of plaint averments. During the course of chief-examination PW-1 has tendered 49 documents and they have been admitted as per Exhibit P-1 to P-49.

16. Exhibit P-1 and P-29 are one and the same and they are the certified copies of Registered Sale Deed No.5593/1992-93 dated 18-02-1993 executed by Sri S. Amarjith Singh in favour of plaintiff. Exhibit P-2, P-15 to P- 21 and P-37 to P-39 are the certified and computerized Records of Rights. Exhibit P-30 to P-33 are the certified copies of Atlas. Exhibit P-34 and P-36 are the Mutation Registers. Exhibit P-40 is the Meeting Proceedings and Exhibit P-12, P-13, P-41 and P-42 are the Tax Assessment and Tax Demand Registers. Exhibit P-43 and P-44 are the Tax Paid Receipts. Exhibit P-3 to P-5 are the Photographs. Exhibit P-6 is the Special Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of her husband. Exhibit P-7 and P-8 are the certified copies of Order Sheet and Plaint in OS No.837/2008. Exhibit P-9 is the certified copy of Order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner pertaining to conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose. Exhibit P-10 is the Revenue Sketch. Exhibit P-11 and P-23 are one and the same and they are the certified copies of Form No.11. Exhibit P-14 is the Navarathna Agrahara Village Map. Exhibit P-24 and P-45 are one and the same and they are the certified copies of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2949/1957- 58 dated 14-02-1958. Exhibit P-25 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1652/1968-69 dated 09-08-1968. Exhibit P-26 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2379/1970-71 dated 03-10-1970. Exhibit P-27 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2537/1977-78 dated 27-02- 1978. Exhibit P-28 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.351/1983-84 dated 10-06-1983 executed by Sri Govinda Kumar Poddar in favour of Sri S. Amarjith Singh who is the vendor of the plaintiff. Exhibit P-46 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1206/1980-81 dated 13-10-1980 executed by Smt Kanthamma in favour of Smt Rekha Arun Kumar. Exhibit P-47 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.992/1986-87 dated 29- 08-1986 executed by Smt Rekha Arun Kumar in favour of Smt Jayalakshmi. Exhibit P-48 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.464/2002-03 executed by Amt Jayalaxmamma in favour of defendant No.1. Exhibit P-49 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.8513/2005-06 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2.

17. Similarly, in order to substantiate the contentions took-up in the written statement, the son of defendant No.2 examined as PW-1 in the form of affidavit and re-iterated all the contents of written statement once again in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination. Hence, I am not going to state the contents of affidavit filed by DW-1 in his affidavit as it is nothing but re-iteration of contents of written statement. During the course of chief-examination, DW-1 has tendered 31 documents and they have been admitted as per Exhibit D-1 to D-31.

18. Exhibit D-1 is the Original Special Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.1 in favour of her son to prosecute the case. Exhibit D-2 is the certified copy of Settlement Deed dt: 30-07-1953. Exhibit D-3 certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt: 14-02-1958. Exhibit D-4 & 5 are the certified copies of Mutation Register. Exhibit D-6 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt: 06-02-1978. Exhibit D-7 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt: 13-10-1980. Exhibit D-8 is the certified copy Registered Sale Deed dt: 29-08-1986. Exhibit D-9 is the certified copy of Mutation Register. Exhibit D-10 is the computerized Record of Rights. Exhibit D-11 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt: 30-12-2002. Exhibit D-12 is the certified copy of Mutation Register. Exhibit D-13 is the computerized Record of Rights. Exhibit D-14 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dt: 10-11-2005. Exhibit D-15 is the certified copy of Mutation Register. Exhibit D-16 is the computerized Record of Rights. Exhibit D-17 is the certified copy of withdrawal Memo. Exhibit D-18 is the certified copy of IA No.15 of OS No.1787/2006. Exhibit D-19 is the certified copy of Special Power of Attorney. Exhibit D-20 is the certified copy of Mutation Register. Exhibit D- 21 is the certified copy of Record of Rights. Exhibit D-22 is the certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate. Exhibit D-23 is the certified copy of Tax Paid Receipt. Exhibit D-24 to 30 are the certified copies of Photos. Exhibit D-30 (a) is the negative. Exhibit D-31 is the certified copy of Mutation Register.

19. The plaintiff is claiming her lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed dated 18-02- 1993 executed by Sri Amarjith Singh. It is her further case is that Sri Amarjith Singh has purchased the suit land from its previous owner through Registered Sale Deed dated 10-06-1983 from Sri Govinda Kumar Poddar. On the other hand, it is the specific defense of the defendants is that Sri Amarjith Singh has purchased the said property under the Registered Sale Deed dated 10-06-1983 and while alienating the said property to the plaintiff, Sri Amarjith Singh has shown the different and false boundaries and therefore the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are false. The defendants have contended that the western and southern boundaries of the suit schedule property shown in the plaint schedule and in the Registered Sale Deed dated 18-02-1993 are false. The Registered Sale Deed dated 10-06-1983 executed by Sri Amarjith Singh in favour of plaintiff has been placed on record as per Exhibit P-1/P-29. Similarly, the Registered Sale Deed under which Sri Amarjith Singh purchased the suit land has been placed on record as per Exhibit P-28.

  • It could be seen from Exhibit P-28 that Sri Govinda Kumar Poddar has sold 06-00 acres out of 12-00 acres in favour of Sri Amarjith Singh and delivered the possession. It could also be seen that the property purchased by Sri Amarjith Singh has been bounded on east by: – the land in survey No.97; west by : – the land in survey No.95; north by : – Eletore boundary and south by : – the remaining 06-00 acres of land in survey No.96 belongs to the vendor. So, it is clear from Exhibit P-28 that Sri Amarjith Singh has purchased northern 06-00 acres in survey No.96 and remaining 06-00 acres is situated on the southern side.
  • It could be seen from Exhibit P-1/P-29 that Sri Amarjith Singh had sold 06-00 acres in favour of plaintiff and delivered the possession. As per the recitals of the Registered Sale Deed, the property purchased by the plaintiff is bounded on east by: – the land in survey No.97; west by : – the remaining land in survey No.96; north by : – Eletore boundary and south by : – road connecting Navarathna Agrahara and Palya. On combined reading and comparison of the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit P-1/P-29 and P-28, it is clear apparent on record that the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit P- 1/P-29 is not tallying with the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit P-28. The vendor of the plaintiff i.e. Sri Amarjith Singh had purchased the land under Exhibit P-28 and the plaintiff had purchased the land under Exhibit P-29. When such being the case, the boundaries of the property purchased by the plaintiff shall be tallied and in consonance with the boundaries of the property purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff. But there is clear variation in the boundaries on the western and northern side. Hence, it cannot be said that the boundaries of the plaint schedule properties are proper and correct.

22. It is also pertinent to note that PW-1 has admitted in the cross- examination at para-No.11 that the land bearing survey No.96 was totally measures 12-00 acres and out of which, 06-00 acres belong to them. PW-1 also admitted the boundaries mentioned in Exhibit P-28. On going through the Registered Sale Deeds at Exhibit P-1/P-29 and Exhibit P-28 and also the oral evidence of PW-1, it becomes crystal clear to hold that what the boundaries shown in the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-1, which has been executed by Sri Amarjith Singh in favour of the plaintiff, run contrary to the boundaries shown in the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-28 executed by Sri Govind Kumar Poddar in favour of Sri Amarjith Singh. Hence, what the defendants have taken the contention that Sri Amarjith Singh, who has purchased the property on 10-06-1983 under the Registered Sale Deed marked as Exhibit P-28, has shown the different and false boundaries in the Registered Sale Deed dated 18-02-1993 marked as Exhibit P-1, which has been executed by him in favour of the plaintiff, is pragmatically acceptable. As I have earlier stated, it is not in dispute that the land bearing Survey No.96 totally measures 12 acres. In the light of a clear fact that the vendor of the plaintiff i.e. Sri Amarjith Sing has not shown the boundaries, which finds a place in his Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P- 28, while alienating the said property under the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-1 in favour of the plaintiff, apparently the boundaries shown in the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-1 to the property purchased by the plaintiff are different than what exactly finds a place in the mother deed of the plaintiff i.e., the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-28 executed in her favour by Sri Amarjith Singh. It is pivotal to state that the boundaries always will prevail over the survey numbers. It may be stated that when the learned Counsel for defendants has suggested to PW-1, as could be seen from para-No.11 of the cross-examination, that the property purchased by Sri Amarjith Singh and the property sold to the plaintiff are different, PW-1 has admitted to the said suggestion and he has further stated that it comes in Survey No.96. As I have earlier stated, Survey No.96 totally measures 12 acres. Hence, even if the land purchased by the plaintiff under the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-1 comes in Survey No.96, the evidence as discussed supra clears the cloud to hold that the property shown in the plaint schedule is not the property purchased by Sri Amarjith Singh under the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-28. Hence, in view of my above findings, it is my considered opinion that when the plaintiff has failed to prove the purchase of the property as described in the plaint schedule, the question as to whether the plaintiff was put in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property does not arise.

23. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 has stated in the cross- examination at para-No.17 that M/S One World Ventures Company has filed the criminal trespass and forgery case against him and the plaintiff. He has further admitted that Royal Chick Company has filed a case against him in respect of the suit schedule property. He has further admitted that the Karnataka Bank has filed the criminal case against him alleging the forgery of the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. Hence, it is clear that the matter is seized before the Criminal Court as to the genuineness of the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. Further, the fact that the criminal cases in respect of forgery of documents pertaining to the suit schedule property are initiated and pending before the Criminal Court also makes clear that there is a cloud with regard to the genuineness of the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. Even though the mutation registers marked as Exhibit P-34 and Exhibit P-36 and the pahani copies marked as Exhibit P-15 to P-18, P-38 and P-39 establish the fact that the katha of the land in suit Survey No.96, measuring 06-00 acres has been mutated in the name of the plaintiff; I cannot accept the fact that the said documents pertain to the suit schedule property for the reason that the plaintiff has failed to prove the correct boundaries to the suit schedule property. Hence, in view of the fact that the boundaries shown in the Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-1 executed in favour of the plaintiff are contrary to the boundaries shown in the mother document i.e., Registered Sale Deed at Exhibit P-28 executed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff viz., Sri Amarjith Singh and also keeping in mind the fact of filing of criminal cases against the plaintiff and PW-1 regarding forgery of the documents that too, pertaining to the suit schedule property, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the correct boundaries of the suit schedule property and hence, in all perspective, the plaintiff has failed to prove her lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, I answered to Issue No.1 in the negative.

  • ISSUES NO.2 & 3: These issues are inter-linked with each other. Hence these issues are taken together for joint discussion for avoiding repetition of discussion and reasoning.
  • It is necessary to discuss as to whether the defendants are having the properties by the side of the suit schedule property in order to cause obstruction and interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property. Exhibit D-8 is the copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 29-08-1986, which establishes the fact that the land bearing Survey No.3, measuring 04-30 acres was purchased by Smt Jayalaxmamma from Smt Rekha Arun Kumar. Further Exhibit D-12 the mutation register indicates that accordingly the katha of the said land was mutated in her name. Exhibit D-11 is the copy of the Regis- tered Sale Deed dated 30-12-2002 executed by Smt Jayalaxmamma in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.3, measuring 04-30 acres which was purchased by her under the Registered Sale Deed at

Exhibit D-8. Exhibit D-13 and Exhibit D-21 are the Pahani copies and Exhibit P-22 is the EC, which shows that in view of the purchase of the said land made by the defendant No. 1, the katha of the said land was mutated in her name. Exhibit D-14 is the copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 10-11- 2005, which indicates that the defendant No.1 has sold the said land in favour of the defendant No.2. Exhibit D-16 is the pahani copies, which establish the fact that accordingly the katha of the said land has been mutated in the name of the defendant No.2. It is pertinent to note that the boundaries of the land bearing Survey No.3, measuring 04-30 acres shown in the Regis- tered Sale Deeds at Exhibit D-8 and Exhibit D-11 and Exhibit D-14 are one and the same and absolutely there does not find any ambiguity with respect to the boundaries shown in the said Registered Sale Deeds. Hence, it be- comes crystal clear that the defendant No.2 is the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No.3, measuring 04-30 acres.

26. Having perused the boundaries shown in the Registered Sale Deeds at Exhibit D-8, D-11 and D-14, it does not appear to me as to whether the land bearing Survey No.3, measuring 04-30 acres is situated by the side of the suit schedule property. PW-1 in the cross-examination at para-No.18 has clearly admitted the fact that the defendants are not the neighbours of the suit schedule property. PW-1 has further admitted in the cross-examination at the bottom of the said para that as per the documents produced by the plaintiff and as per the plaint averments, the defendant No.2 is not having her property towards the eastern side of the suit schedule property. As per the boundary shown in the plaint schedule, the land bearing Survey No.97 is shown towards eastern side of the suit schedule property. PW-1 has admit- ted in the last portion of the cross-examination that the defendant No.2 is not the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 97. Hence, in view of my findings given supra, it is a fact that admittedly the defendants do not have their properties by the side of the suit schedule property. Hence, the said fact clearly falsifies the case of the plaintiff to the effect that the defendants in- terfered and tried to trespass over the suit schedule property and to dam- age the fencing and attempted to put trenches from the eastern side of the suit schedule property. Hence, the oral and documentary evidence available on record clearly establish the fact that the defendants do not have their property by the side of the property being claimed by the plaintiff and thus, I do not find any truth in the say of the plaintiff of what she has alleged about the interference. This apart, in the light of the fact that the wrong boundaries are shown by the plaintiff to the suit schedule property as dis- cussed supra, I have already come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and hence, the question as to whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants does not arise. Hence, it is my considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought. Hence, I answered to Issue No.2 and 3 in the negative.

27. ISSUE N0.4:- In view of my findings to Issue No.1 to 3 and for the discussions made above and reasons assigned, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

Draw the decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 03rd day of May, 2025)

(KUMARA G.)

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, DEVANAHALLI